Think+make Reading response

Our readings seemed to be concentrated primarily on defining and explaining design in general, showing its breadth, and ultimately saying little more than cumulative summaries of what design theorists have said in many ways. While possibly giving the totally unexposed individual a greater understanding of the breadth of design, this seems to silly to me (as I sit and right my own opinionated summary).  Design cannot be put in a box—unless, paradoxically—it was designed for that purpose, yet we try to quantify it as a mixture of applied systems, creative unorthodoxy, and solution first thinking. Ultimately, in my opinion, the design process is a basic element of human nature that we choose to compartmentalize. Mathematical systems were all designed from creatively using symbols to represent ideas in naturally occurring patterns. Rooms are arranged through forethought of daily routines and the trial and error that comes with living in those environments. If you have never designed at some basic level than you have never lived. Just like fine art, design professions are only different from this basic human condition in that time and energy are purposefully spent to precisely and efficiently represent a creative idea, just as Monet incarnated a fleeting impression, or Einstein simplified our physical existence. To define design one can only show design, and recognize it’s permanent incompleteness.